|
The Supreme Court on Monday held a meeting of justices specializing in election offenses and pledged to deliver rulings within two months, including appeals, on breaches committed during the April 9 general election. The justices even vowed to make judgments by default should defendants or witnesses refuse to appear in court with the aim of delaying the trial. Clause 270 of Korea¡¯s Election Law stipulates that the first trials involving election law violations arrive at rulings within six months, while second and third trials must deliver rulings within three months. The Supreme Court has vowed to make this process even speedier.
There have been many instances when lawmakers indicted for violating election regulations dragged on the trial process by repeatedly filing for delays or bringing in new witnesses during each new trial. One trial involving a lawmaker following the 16th general election was held 19 times and dragged on for two years, but the lawmaker appeared in court only six times. Because he abused his special immunity against arrest, the court had to send a request for him to be placed under police custody. Some lawmakers maintained their positions for up to 38 months after their indictment by abusing such privileges. To put it bluntly, lawmakers unfit for their positions posed as assemblymen and were robbing taxpayers blind.
A lot of the blame goes to the court. In many instances it considered the Election Law clause on the ruling deadline as just a guideline and failed to deal sternly with attempts by lawmakers to delay the trial. Korean courts vowed back in 2006 to speed up the trial process. As a result, 95 percent of first trials involving Election Law violations following the 17th general election were finished within six months. That was an improvement from the 56 percent rate following the 16th general election. But only 52 percent of second trials passed rulings within the required three-month deadline. Either the courts lacked the will to obey this rule or they were pushed around by the tricks of those who broke the law. Following the 18th general election, the court must not let lawmakers who gained their statuses by illegal means and use delay tactics act like assemblymen while making joke out of the public¡¯s right to vote.
There were also numerous cases where a court first imposed a fine of W1 million (US$1=W1,014) or above, which nullifies an election win, but later reduced it to between W500,000 to W800,000. Between the 15th to 17th general elections, out of 64 cases that ended up with a nullification sentence during the first trial, only 32 saw those sentences upheld on appeal. This type of bargaining mentality by the courts ended up stoking the belief that election to the National Assembly would guarantee bullet-proof status. The courts must instill the awareness that breaking the Election Law results in punishment and an end to a lawmaker¡¯s term.
|
